So Jobs likes options, so do we!

If OS X can run on x86, why not come out with Apple brand computers built on x86 in addition to those based on the PPC. Then Apple would not be at the mercy of one company or one chip. It would put pressure on both PPC and x86 sides to put out better hardware and WE THE CUSTOMERS AND APPLE WOULD BE THE WINNERS! It would also end the debate whether the x86 or PPC architecture is fastest.

I could see it now. Jobs giving a keynote address with a x86 machine and a PPC machine both running OS X side by side, both Apple branded machines. Heck, add the Power4 to the mix too. Apple should end up with an OS that scales from an entry level machine to workstation powerhouse. Heck, there are plenty of people who would buy a quad processor Mac if it were offered. I'm not talking about making OS X available to run on older existing PCs or those offered by other companies. That way, Apple is not going to cannablize their hardware sales.

Jobs could then have a x86 machine running OS X dual it out with a x86 machine running Windows using programs like Office, Photoshop, etc. Then the operating system would be the focus of attention not the GHz speed. Even if the windows machine was slightly cheaper and faster, the Mac has a better user interface, more stable OS, and lower total cost of ownership. (I use and own both PCs and Mac and know this from experience)

The bottom line is this - We don't care what CPU is inside - PPC, Intel, AMD, Power4. All we care about is OS, speed, and price. Jobs, give us options 'cause WE TOO LIKE OPTIONS!

Analyzing the situation

If Apple were to sell a x86 (or non-PPC chip) computer running OS X and it was slower, it would boost Apple's PPC sales, image, and market share. Think of the ads - yes, you could run OS X on x86 and we wil sell you one but why use an inferior machine...? This is a win for Apple.

If Apple were to sell a x86 computer running OS X and it was faster, it would probably give us better machines at a better price, again boosting Apple's image and market share. Sure at the expense of the PPC but they would still get the sales on the x86 side. Apple does not need to be in the CPU business to be profitable in hardware. Just ask Microsoft. Again a win for Apple.

What would probably happen is the x86 machine would be cheap and fast for many things, but not for audio/video/graphics. Here the Velocity Engine would help out. So the customer decides what he or she is going to use the computer and buys the right tool for the job. THE CHIP SPEED DEBATE NEEDS TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE OS DEBATE!

I don't think it is a black and white issue nor is it a stupid idea. If Apple has OS X for x86 running and waiting if needed, why not release it to test the waters and see how people respond. If they get a good response and the machines are fast, they win by selling more machines and make the Mhz gap between x86 and PPC moot. If they get a bad response, they win again by showing customers think the PPC chip is superior.

If the x86 version is slower and they don't release a x86 running OS X, they don't correct the Mhz gap myth. Apple suffers.

If the x86 version is faster and they don't release OS X on it, they are limiting themselves by using the PPC and Microsoft keeps wining with the help of Apple's decision to stick with the PPC. Apple suffers.

Pride always factors into decisions, but rarely ever in a good way.

Maybe Apple has something great in the works for the PPC, or some variation thereof and will not need the x86 or some other chip. If this is the case though, Apple's superhuman PPC is not going to make Intel, AMD, and others disappear. Who knows, maybe a few years from now, AMD or Intel will come out with a monster chip and Apple needs to be able to take advantage of it.

Apple NEEDS options. It will cost them some money developing for both platforms but it sounds like they are already doing that. It does greatly reduce their risk factor. Simple investing.

So, the way I see it, Apple only benefits by releasing a x86 PC running OS X. Give the press, critics, and customers something to chew on.

OS X on x86

In no way am I saying Apple should make OS X available on regular PCs. Take an iMac, eMac, G4 Tower, whatever and put a x86 motherboard and chip in it and run OS X on it. Fact is, you, I, and everybody else wouldn't notice the difference. Only Apple would sell these machines and Apple could price them however they want. Forget running OS X on a Dell, HP, or Compaq. Hardware sales would still generate Apple's needed cash.

(Off subject but very scary...
MS could cut off sales of their operating systems to all other PC makers, make their their own PCs like Apple, and cut every other PC company out of business. If they could figure a way to weasel out the the following monopoly lawsuit they would do it too.)

If Apple gave up hardware sales I can see why it would be a stupid move. So I would agree with the posts to not release OS X on x86 this way. But it is not the only way. I think different(ly).

I think. Therefore, I am
I think different. Therefore iMac!

Some good points, but...

Okay, some of you have brought up some good points.

Being fairly knowledgeable about computers I do not sweat the details on buying a computer. However, I guess I do need to look through the eyes of others - like my parents - to see the confusion they would have. One possible solution would be to do what AMD has tried to do - come up with a P value or rating system. Heck even a knowledgeable guy like me would find that useful. Of course, it would be nice to rate each machine also for various functions like audio, video, graphics. Oh well.

I read the article about MS and WalMart. Some useful info there. I can see Wal Mart being tough to take down but think MS is not as invincible as some think they are. I think Apple putting out some good software can help their cause while MS can't for fear of monopoly lawsuits. It is MS that is handicapped here.

I think Apple is on a roll and really do not care about x86 chips necessarily. I just want a kickin' cpu - or multiple cpus - to run OS X. Apple seems to keep getting held back by bad chip PR.

I believe Apple's strength and future lies in software and its integration with its hardware. People need solutions, not products. Apple gets this. They need to become independent of other software companies - like Adobe and MS - and I think independent of a single cpu company.

I don't know about no software running on OS X for x86. If programmers use Apple's APIs and libraries, should not a program be independent of the CPU? How much code now days is assembler or cpu specific? Does not software already deal with G3s without the Velocity Engine and G4s with it?

I think Apple needs to continue on its software programs and even ween themselves off Office and Photoshop. I would like to buy an Apple with all the software I need on it. I don't care about 10 word processing programs. All I need is one. The same for audio, video, graphics, dtp, etc. Maybe have high and low end software like they are doing. That's cool. Looking forward to see what they will do with Emagic.

Apple needs to identify the twenty or thirty most common programs and nail them. And they need TONS of games. Throw in a great accounting program with open source code, use part of their web site for people to sell custom modifications, and boom - a machine for the business and home.

Funny, I am calling for more options in hardware, and less options in software. I guess that is because the hardware side of things need a boost but the software kicks butt.

I guess I get carried away. I like the Mac, just as I liked my old Commodore 64, the Amiga, and NeXt Cube. Never fell in love with a PC or mainframe system. Guess I spent too much time using and troubleshooting them at work.

Thanks to all for the good feedback. I read and read but post so little. Sorry for the opinion dump.